Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Skeptical of Business Method Patents
Trepidity writes "The US Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in Bilski, a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications for software patents (We have previously discussed the case several times). The tone of the argument appears to be good news, as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims. They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates. Roberts surmised that 'buy low, sell high' might be a patentable business method, Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep, and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera Lorenzo Jones, featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich." Patently O has good blow-by-blow coverage of the day's proceedings. Official argument transcripts will be up soon, they say.
Oh, good. We may yet have some hope.
I enjoyed this bit of the exchanges the most:
**************
MR. STEWART: Well, first of all the only ruling that we're -- backtrack a bit,
to say, we oppose, sir, in this case because we recognize that there are
difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations
and medical diagnostics.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.
MR. STEWART: I didn't think --
(Laughter.)
MR. STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up. We thought that this
case would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questions
because the case doesn't involve computer software or medical diagnostic
techniques, and therefore, we thought the Court would arrive at the position
that I think, at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at, that
you will decide this case, and most of the hard questions remain unresolved.
And, frankly, we think that's true.
*******************
Can someone explain to me:
1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?
2. Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the political
interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand? (there
is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which
seems very dubious to me at any rate).
3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?
I think the govt. (read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyers
and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
They'll copy your model anyways, if you're small, you can't afford that many business patents (getting a patent is expensive, and litigating patents is also expensive and will put you out of business, unless you are successful against corporate army of lawyers).
Patents nowadays are very much for lawyers and large corporations BY lawyers and large corporations. They provide very little / no effective protection to the little guy.
When talking of references, whenever anyone says "Professor Farnsworth" I think of the inventor of TV, not the funny cartoon character. But anyone who thinks different from you is weird and wrong, eh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!
They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."
I am the lawn!
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe? Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.
How, exactly, is Justice Thomas "in the tank" for big business, and how, exactly, can "other ones ... be bought"? There are of course the all-important campaign contributions. No, wait, federal judges are appointed for life. Scratch that. Well, Big Biz could lobby Congress to reduce their pay if they don't stay in line. Except that would be patently unconstitutional under Article III. But still, they need to kiss the right behinds to climb the ladder. Except they're already on the Supreme Court, so there's really nowhere to go. So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices? Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen. Also, we have some pretty stupid justices who would jeapordize their careers and legacies for the sake of whatever bribe the baddies are willing to offer.
I often disagree with Supreme Court justices, but for better or worse, it's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that's the way things ought to be. Our clever little Constitution did a pretty good job of removing all other incentives. Now, they may be cozy with the interests they've sided with through the years, because we all love to be buddies with like-minded people, but nobody owns them. If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.